More dangerous than terrorism?

Where will the next generation of soldiers, policemen and firemen come from if young people are too fat to fight and too likely to have a heart attack to handle emergencies, Carmona asked students at the University of South Carolina?

Europe faces many of the same problems with obesity. Changing the labels on muesli bars and yoghurts might not seem like much of a response to such doomsday predictions. But, says Jim Murray, director-general of BEUC, the European consumers' group, it will help.

The EU regulation on food nutrition and health claims was proposed to tackle a range of health problems, from diabetes to tooth decay, but debate has always focused on obesity because "obesity is rising everywhere", according to Murray, "particularly among young people and those on low incomes."

Pointing to Carmona's claim that "unless we do something about [obesity], the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other terrorist attempt", Murray says that changing people's eating habits through the new labelling rules is an important move.

Although calorie consumption for the average European has fallen sharply in the last 50 years, so has the amount of physical activity we take, meaning that obesity has become increasingly common.

Exercise alone won't fix the problem, says Murray: "It is unrealistic to think we can return to the calorie expenditure levels of 100 years ago, when everyone walked everywhere or rode a horse. We have got to see calorie intake adapt to modern life."

Once the nutrition and health claims proposal comes into force, Murray says the next big thing should be simplified nutritional labelling, making it easier for shoppers to see what their food contains.

"It is not enough to go through big long tables of percentages, we need simplified signposting," he said.

The European Commission says that it wants to see how much industry can do through self-

regulation. But according to Murray this won't work since "the purpose of labelling is to discourage people from eating some foods".

"Some companies will see themselves as losers," he says.

BEUC hopes now to see the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draw up tough nutritional profiles for health claims under the new regulation. The Parma-based agency has to decide what levels of sugar, salt and fat in a food or drink should bar it from making health claims.

"No doubt there will be arguments over this. Breakfast cereals for example can contain anything from 9% to 50% sugar - at what point should we cut off health claims?" says Murray.

BEUC has not suggested ideal nutritional profiles because "the fight was to make sure we win the principle in the first place".

"We will be part of the argument on nutritional profiles, I don't know if we will take the initiative and put forward percentages and grammes," he adds.

Once the profiles have been finalised, health claims such as "good for your bones" will be outlawed on all products above the agreed thresholds.

The situation for nutrition claims such as "contains calcium" will, however, be slightly different.

BEUC also wants a total ban on nutrition claims on foods high in sugar, fat or salt. But the text finally agreed will tolerate these claims on foods as long as they contain high levels of only one of the three nutrients.

Apart from allowing positive messages on foods that BEUC thinks consumers should often avoid, the amendment will probably lead to more complications, says Murray.

If a food high in salt, sugar or fat wants to make a nutrition claim, it will also have to give "similar prominence" to a statement that it is high in salt, sugar or fat. "There will be arguments over what that means," predicted Murray, adding that marketing people are understandably reluctant to risk undermining good news on a label with bad.

The idea of "similar prominence" is, however, the "least worst amendment" proposed, he says.

It is not yet clear whether it is enough to make obesity less threatening than terrorism.